This test was ignored long ago in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/20578/ when the syntax for
closures was changed.
The current status is that a closure with an explicit `!` return type
will trigger the `unreachable_code` lint which appears to be the
original intent of the test
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/16836). A closure without a
return type won't trigger the lint since the `!` type isn't inferred
(AFAIK). This restores the test to its original form.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #110153 (Fix typos in compiler)
- #110165 (rustdoc: use CSS `overscroll-behavior` instead of JavaScript)
- #110175 (Symbol cleanups)
- #110203 (Remove `..` from return type notation)
- #110205 (rustdoc: make settings radio and checks thicker, less contrast)
- #110222 (Improve the error message when forwarding a matched fragment to another macro)
- #110237 (Split out a separate feature gate for impl trait in associated types)
- #110241 (tidy: Issue an error when UI test limits are too high)
Failed merges:
- #110218 (Remove `ToRegionVid`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add `useless_anonymous_reexport` lint
This is a follow-up of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/108936. We once again show all anonymous re-exports in rustdoc, however we also wanted to add a lint to let users know that it very likely doesn't have the effect they think it has.
Make `unused_allocation` lint against `Box::new` too
Previously it only linted against `box` syntax, which likely won't ever be stabilized, which is pretty useless. Even now I'm not sure if it's a meaningful lint, but it's at least something 🤷
This means that code like the following will be linted against:
```rust
Box::new([1, 2, 3]).len();
f(&Box::new(1)); // where f : &i32 -> ()
```
The lint works by checking if a `Box::new` (or `box`) expression has an a borrow adjustment, meaning that the code that first stores the box in a variable won't be linted against:
```rust
let boxed = Box::new([1, 2, 3]); // no lint
boxed.len();
```
lint: don't suggest MaybeUninit::assume_init for uninhabited types
Creating a zeroed uninhabited type such as `!` or an empty enum with `mem::zeroed()` (or transmuting `()` to `!`) currently triggers this lint:
```rs
warning: the type `!` does not permit zero-initialization
--> test.rs:5:23
|
5 | let _val: ! = mem::zeroed();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| |
| this code causes undefined behavior when executed
| help: use `MaybeUninit<T>` instead, and only call `assume_init` after initialization is done
|
= note: the `!` type has no valid value
```
The `MaybeUninit` suggestion in the help message seems confusing/useless for uninhabited types, as such a type cannot be fully initialized in the first place (as the note implies).
This PR limits this help message to inhabited types which can be initialized
